Requests for comment/Crimean Tatar coverage on ruwiki

Dialog-information on.svgThis is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.


SummaryEdit

It's not exactly a secret that there is a high degree of animosity towards Crimean Tatars in Russian media, and in turn that is reflected in Russian Wikipedia. But the extent that this is manifested in Russian Wikipedia and the means which certain editors have been willing to go to push out any mention of Crimean Tatars that conflicts their hostile POV is beyond absurd and needs to be clamped down on. While Russian Wikipedia is overall pretty lenient when it comes to tolerating articles with little to no sourcing, hostile editors have long been concern trolling by filing waves of deletion nominations for Crimean Tatar related articles that go well beyond exceed sourcing and notability requirements in every way possible, just for the purpose of carrying out dragged-out deletion discussions to punish the creators of said articles and deter development of content related to Crimean Tatars that goes against the Russian perception that maintains a highly negative view of Crimean Tatars. A few select examples of such trolling include:

  • A very symbolic example of this is encapsulated via the nomination of the article about the South Coast Dweller Crimean Tatars for deletion. As if the assimilation efforts weren't enough of an attack on the Yaliboylu people already, now the shell that remains is unworthy of even being remembered as having ever existed on Wikipedia?!?! If that's not a perfect metaphor for the past 80 years, I don't know what is. Obviously, it isn't difficult to see why some nefarious elements do not want information about the very existence of this subethnos to be on wikipedia, as it readily contradicts their "Asiatic hordes" narrative about Crimean Tatars. This really should have been closed a long time ago. If such thing happened to any other article about a small but well-documented ethnic group, it would be promptly closed, but instead this deletion nomination has remained up for years.
    • Update: The deletion nomination was finally closed recently, likely due to this very discussion, which is certainly an improvement. Nevertheless, the fact that this nomination existed and was treated as an open issue for years just goes to show an example of the attitude towards Crimean Tatars and the leeway admins give to behavior of rogue editors.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The article about the Deportation of the Crimean Tatars falsely implies that any a Crimean Tatar was heroic enough in the Red Army they could get out of deportation, mentioning Amet-khan and Emir Chalbash. ("Тем не менее, крымские татары, воевавшие в частях Красной Армии и в партизанских отрядах, также подвергнуты административной высылке[43]. Известны исключения, когда офицеры из числа крымских татар, не высланы в места депортации как спецпереселенцы, такие, как лётчики Амет Хан Султан и Эмир Усеин Чалбаш, но им было запрещено жить в Крыму.") But what it doesn't say is WHY they in particular (as opposed to the many other Crimean Tatar war heroes, like Nuri Dzhelilov, Seytnafe Seytveliev, Seitnebi Abduramanov, etc) were spared - specifically, paternity technicalities and having friends in very high places such as general Khryukhin (in the case of Amet-khan) and being Air Force buddies with Stalin's son (as in the case of Chalbash - his wife specified that this was the major reason was why he was spared). Failing to mention those key points of context and note that it was not always the case (most heroes didn't have personal friends in very high places and/or non-Crimean paternity) allows historical revisionists to go on to make their absurd false claims that all good Crimean Tatars were spared/everyone deported deserved it.
  • Another example of an absurd use of deletion nomination (now closed, thankfully) for trolling purposes was with the article about the Mubarek project, which the nominator insisted was not real despite all the evidence to the contrary;
  • In line with the standard operating procedure of nominating practically every new article about a Crimean Tatar for deletion, the article about Rollan Kadyev, a famous theoretical physicist and national movement activist (leader of the Samarkand group) mentioned in numerous literature was nominated for deletion, despite having a plethora of media coverage (which, ironically, Pravda Vostoka lamented in 1979). Other initiative group leader biography articles have been subject to such absurd deletion nominations as well, including the articles for Dzhebbar Akimov (again, not someone lacking media coverage by any stretch of the imagination) and other articles about Crimean Tatar intellectuals in what appears to be a coordinated effort to minimize and downplay Crimean Tatar excellence;
  • Nomination for deletion of the article about Crimean Tatars in the USSR by a user with a very colorful past on the issue of coverage of Crimean Tatars (Nevermind that there are articles about Crimean Tatar populations in other countries);
  • Coordinated efforts to manipulate this page, which really should be written on a geographic, not racial basis for POV pushing purposes solely conforming to the point of barring mention of sources presenting a different picture (such eliminating the POV tag mentioning that such units were not monoethnic and that estimates of the number of people involved vary widely between sources). Probably worth mentioning here that no counterpart article exists for any others in a strictly ethnic sense as opposed to in a geographic sense - even the Baltic peoples, despite their behavior, do not get individual articles about their individual ethnic groups during this time. Russian Wikipedia and Russian sources have not been very good about writing about this issue in an accurate way to put it mildly - after all, it took an editwar to stop omitting the fact that Mustafa Kyrymal was a Lipka Tatar in his biography (which many Russian sources conceal very well). Unfortunately, one cannot even cite the estimates by Vozgrin, because he was considered an "unrelaible source" in a brief discussion a long time ago (which, of course, had no Crimean Tatar input), and likely will never be considered a permitted source for citing by consensus on Russian Wikipedia much for the same reasons that RT was blacklisted in enwiki.

While any one of these things alone would not be grounds for action from meta, the long pattern that has developed is clearly problematic and serves to create a more than hostile environment in ruwiki that strongly deters any Crimean Tatar editors from wanting to join and contribute to the project.

What compounds the problem and makes it difficult to handle this internally is that the communal response is largely tolerant and accommodating of such behavior, if not condoning and further enabling behavior of the rogue elements who engage in this coordinated campaign to paint as negative a picture of Crimean Tatars as physically possible and purge anything that gets in the way of that. For example, while the website novoross.info (which has openly white supremacist editors, such as Yevgeny Popov) and its affiliates are not blacklisted in Russian Wikipedia, while works by the academic Valery Vozgrin (and others who write about Crimean Tatars in a more nuanced manner) are considered to be unreliable sources.

ProposalsEdit

  • Top ban for users Inctructor, Esp, Esp rus4, Esp rus3, Wiki Viola, Томасина, Ориенталист and any future sockpuppets they create
  • Deletion and locking of articles about Crimean Tatars created by those said users without discussion from Russian Wikimedia community that has tolerated their behavior for extended periods of time
  • Blacklisting of the site novoross.info and its affiliates (or whatever they rename themself to if they rename/rebrand)
  • Un-banning citing works by Vozgrin and other Russian historians about Crimean Tatars who write from a nuanced perspective
  • Mandatory oversight and notification to meta for all future deletion nominations for articles about or involving Crimean Tatars to deter troll-nominations that solely exist to punish article developers for writing about Crimean Tatars in a non-negative light/deter creation of Crimean Tatar articles in the first place.
  • Ban on IP editing and accounts less than 30 days old from editing pages about Crimean Tatars to prevent sockpuppeting and shitposting
  • Institute a ban on attack pages (instead of being merely a proposed rule/essay)

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Has the local project been notified? This is mandatory. --Rschen7754 18:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
    @PlanespotterA320: --Rschen7754 16:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Has there been a local RFC about this before? MarioGom (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    • There have been numerous local-level attempts to address Crimea-related issues, and they do not go well given the makeup of the editors of Russian Wikipedia.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Welp, local wiki has been notified, and just as one can expect, they are not taking it well. Even made the heading my username and tried to make the whole discussion about me instead of acknowledging the issue at hand and admitting the problem's existance. This further supports my thesis that ruwiki is not capable of handling this internally and therefore should be decided by parties from other wikis.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Looks like a yet another attempt of gaming the system, as this user has been blocked numerous times on ruwiki due to counterproductive behaviour in this topic. SummerKrut (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Counterproductive behavior? Hun, if you want to talk about counterproducive behavior in this area, take a look at the behavior of some of your colleagues on Russian Wikipedia who make it their mission to stifle development of quality content in this area as possible (cough cough, the pathetic deletion nominations of literal ethnic groups saying their very existence was a fringe theory). THAT behavior needs to be addressed, and has needed to be addressed LONG ago but due to the nature of the wiki, has been widely tolerated. Attempting to stop malicious sabotage of quality content about an ill-represented ethnic group is not gaming the system. However, coordinating to attack anyone who doesn't tow the line is.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
      По какой причине вы сразу предприняли попытку "заткнуть" своих оппонентов глобально? По своему опыту скажу, что упорные деструктивные попытки протолкнуть сомнительную информацию о этнических группах рано или поздно кончается блокировками. Скачала крымские татары, потом трибуна с уйгурами — вы уверены, что сами ведёте себя конструктивно? La loi et la justice (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
      Personal attacks don't help a discussion progress. SummerKrut (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
      • "Dubious"? Honey, if you want to talk about dubious theories about ethnic minorities, just look at what your ruwiki colleages have said about Crimean Tatars in the examples I have highlighted! NOBODY should ever have to explain that the Yaliboylu people are a real ethnic-cultural group (contrary to what a chauvanist in ruwiki claimed) or that the Mubarek project was not a hoax to make Russia look bad. None of what I have written here is fringe at all!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
        • @Martin Urbanec: could you please cool down ms. Planespotter? She has went a little too far with personal attacks. SummerKrut (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
          • Asking another user to silence me because I refute false claims about me is absurd. I shouldn't have to say this again, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME! THIS IS ABOUT HOW RUSSIAN WIKIPEDIA HANDLES MATTERS RELATING TO CRIMEAN TATARS. Personal attacks on me DO NOT help your case. I am not here to push fringe theories. I am here to get meta wiki to force Russian Wikipedia to stop fringe ultra-nationalist propaganda that disrespects a generally unpopular national minority from remaining mainstream on ruwiki. I have cited examples of users engaging in fringe behavior that would not go unchecked in any other wiki. In addition, ruwiki's response has proven just how much ruwiki is a hostile environment for anyone wanting to raise the issue or even try to improve content on the issue.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Радикальный настрой участницы не позволяет ей адекватно оценить ситуацию и отношение редакторов русского раздела Википедии к ее излюбленной теме. Вместо того, чтобы писать качественные статьи, участница пытается выставить претензии к нарушению правил в её статьях за нелюбовь к нации. Если она будет продолжать писать так, как пишет, статьи будут выноситься на удаление даже если она будет писать о русских. Если коллега будет писать в соответствии с принятыми правилами, на основании авторитетных источников, соблюдая нейтральную точку зрения и на грамотном русском языке, претензий к её статьям не будет. Относительно обвинений персонально в мой адрес - считаю их необоснованным преследованием и оставляю за собой право жаловаться в T&S. Убедительно прошу топикстартера не отвечать на мою реплику и не пытаться со мной спорить. --Томасина (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    • If you're going to throw accusations at people, you cannot ask that people not respond to you. You were an active participant in worsening the already poor state of content about Crimean Tatars on ruwiki. I hate clearly listed out my concerns, and they are not radical or nationalist at all, but a basic demand that Crimean Tatar related articles be treated the SAME WAY other articles on ruwiki are treated, which is currently not the case. I have given examples that well substantiate my claims about how Crimean Tatar related articles are hounded and pushed for removal (which bears a sharp contrast to how articles on other subjects are treated far more leniently, often containing no sources at all). Also, threatening to delete anything I write even if it uncontroversial simply because I wrote it and threatening to have be blocked for trying to bring this issue to the attention of meta certainly does not help make your case that Russian Wikipedia is a constructive and respectful environment for the development of Crimean Tatar articles and therefore does not require intervention from Wikimedia. Furthermore, this is not even my "favorite topic" - less than 1% of my THOUSANDS of edits in Russian Wikipedia are in this topic matter. While I do not CREATE or START articles much in ruwiki, I am nevertheless a very productive contributor, which can be attested to by numerous other editors familiar with my work improving articles about pilots, generals, Heroes of the Soviet Union, Heroes of Socialist Labor, and the other main topics that I contribute to via providing quality fair-use photos, tracking down authorship and publication information of historic photos, expanding bibliographies of articles, adding date of death to biographies of people whose date of death is not mentioned, etc. Now, back to e main subject of this request for comment - if the content related to Crimean Tatars was not being disproportionately hounded and attacked by other editors for malicious reasons, then surely nobody on Russian wikipedia would have any worries about users outside Russian Wikipedia seeing what the situation is like on Russian Wikipedia. Ad hominem attacks on me do not negate the issue in question, but actually help me make my case that Russian Wikipedia is incapable of handling this manner internally. As for you in particular, you beligerently pursued a deletion nomination of the Mubarek zone article by claiming it was not well sourced and insisting it came "from Crimean Tatars imaginations" despite numerous sources to the contrary being provided (certainly far more sources than most articles on ruwiki ever have). I suspect you never even personally considered it a hoax and knew that article could never be deleted given how well sourced it was, but simply wanted to conduct a dragged out deletion nomination in a punitive fashion to deter creation of articles on topics like it. And given how other members of ruwiki have done similar things (ex, with the Yaliboylu article), I certainly have the right to be suspicious about this behavior that disproportionately targets articles on this narrow subject.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Вы можете доказать, что предложение статьи "Мубарекская зона" к удалению было умышленным преследованием крымских татар? Сейчас статья существует под другим названием, но в ней почти нет Вашего текста. Крымские татары есть, а Ваш текст, неприемлемый по форме и не подтверждающийся источниками, вычищен. Вот и всё "преследование" крымских татар в Википедии. Просто пишите как полагается: нейтрально, взвешенно и на основе авторитетных источников. А если не можете так писать - пишите о чем-то другом. Вот я о домашних животных пишу и не пишу на темы, в которых я не нейтральна. К крымским татарам, как и ко всем другим татарам, я абсолютно нейтральна. --Томасина (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Even other users of ruwiki found your behavior very odd and considered it targeted given just how much you hounded that article in particular and beligerently maintained insistence on keeping the deletion nomination contrary to the consensus of other users. And as has been repeatedly told to you, the term "Mubarek zone" was a shorthand used for the project in question since it was based on Mubarek - and such term is found in various sources that were shown to you. Some of your comments about why you considered it a hoax were obviously political and prejudicial in nature, your simple statement that you have no strong feelings about anyone called "tatar" doesn't undo that. I would like to see you for once apply the same rigorous standard to hound an article of equivalent quality on any other topic. The article has changed a lot since it was a stub when I published it, but much of the original text and sources cited remain in the backbone of the article. The fact that other editors added more information to the article to show how ridiculous your claims were due to your hounding doesn't give legitimacy to your comments to begin with.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Учитывая лог блокировок в рукиви участницы и её настрой на конфротацию, я бы советовал вообще не рассматривать запрос по существу. По необходимости к участнице могут быть применены меры локального ограничения, никаких глобальных проблем я не наблюдаю. La loi et la justice (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Do you hear yourself? Literally saying that an issue should not be considered on its merits and launching an ad hominem attack on me complete with suggesting a punitive block on me on ruwiki just for bringing up this issue (which clearly has merit given that you don't want it to be addressed on the basis of its merits) just further shows how ruwiki is hostile to handling this issue.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment What do impartial observers (ie, not editors of ruwiki) have to say? This is the ultimate question here. Would this kind of behavior clearly targeting a certain ethnic minority be considered acceptable on your wiki?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I really shouldn't have to say this, but this discussion is NOT about me, it is about the issue covered in the title. If ruwiki thinks theyt have no problem in the matter and/or are capable of cleaning up their act without interference from meta, they can say so. But ad hominem attacks on me do not negate the existance of the problem on its merits that I have highlighted. Blatant instance on NOT looking at the issue on its merits but instead resorting to personal attacks does not make ruwiki editors look good in that respect.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    Please keep in mind this: en:Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. This is a standard in all wiki-projects. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Update: I have been punished with an indef block on ruwiki for creating this RfC per the request of aforementioned people whose problematic behavior I described here, denying me the opportunity to participate in any further discussions on the matter in ruwiki. The fact that describing blatantly chauvinistic behaviors (ex claiming the existance of Yaliboylu people is a fringe theory) as chauvanistic in the first place is bannable for "insulting" other users. I maintain that I have the right to point out the disparities in how Crimean Tatar articles are treated and how Crimean Tatars are covered in ruwiki compared to other topics, and pointing out that issue is NOT a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The quick reaction from those in Russian Wikipedia to rush in to make this all about me, launch personal attacks, and demand my permanent ban for bringing this all to the attention of the wider Wikipedia community certainly doesn't look good on their part and further goes to show their unwillingness to address or even acknowledge the existing problem in disparities between how articles on Crimean Tatars are compared to other national minorities. I maintain that the users involved in these transgressions should face sanctions from the wider Wikimedia community if Russian Wikipedia does not acknowledge the problem and clean up their act immediately.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Could you please not distort facts? You have been indefblocked as a result of repeated personal attacks (the administrator decided to use an indefblock because of your large block log), and you have also got TPA revoked due to continuing to use it to say that calling someone a "chauvinist" is normal. SummerKrut (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
      • "Distort facts"? You and the others involved on ruwiki are actively doing that. I hate repeating myself, but you are clearly failing to distinguish between the fact that I called BEHAVIORS chauvanist. There is a difference between calling a person "a chauvanist" and saying that chauvanistic behaviors are seen in given examples of wiki discussion. To cite the ban request, word for word: "В обсуждении участница позволила себе оскорбление участников персонально в форме этикетки "шовинизм" и угрозы в адрес русскоязычного раздела в целом. Мне кажется, блокировка на сколько-то продолжительный период совсем назрела, с учетом предыстории, и не может быть заменена топикбаном на кымско-татарскую тематику, который, конечно, тоже нужен. Такие необоснованные обвинения не могут оставаться без реакции, господа администраторы." In other words, I was banned for 1. "Insulting" other users by calling BEHAVIORS (that would get a ban in any other wiki for chauvanism) as "chauvanist" (ignoring the distinction between calling a PERSON something and calling a BEHAVIOR something). Should I use positive adjectives for behaviors like saying the existance of Yaliboylu people is a fringe theory and claiming that the Mubarek zone was a hoax invented by Crimean Tatars to make Russia look bad? I don't think so. 2. "threats against the Russian-language section as a whole" - ie, punishing me with censorship for saying that meta and the wider wikipedia community should be aware of the appalling state of Russian Wikipedia in this category and take measures to reduce the severity of it if ruwiki leadership refuses to acknowledge and address the problem (in short, punishing me for filing this RfC). 3. "Such unfounded accusations cannot go unanswered, gentlemen administrators" in other words, because I dare say in the first place that people in ruwiki treat Crimean Tatar articles differently (nevermind that my statements are not unfounded as I have provided multiple examples of problems complete with links) I should be punished with a block per the request of a user whose unacceptable behavior (that, as I have said before, would not be tolerated on ANY OTHER WIKI) has come under scrutiny from outside the realms of ruwiki where their behavior is widely tolerated. And then when I tried to explain that calling a behavior chauvanist is not a personal insult but a description of a negative behavior, I was blocked from my talkpage for insulting them. Now, those anyone here who is NOT part of ruwiki think describing some of the behaviors I listed at the top of the page (insisting Mubarek zone was a hoax invented by Crimean Tatars to make Russia look bad, saying Yaliboylu people existance is a fringe theory) think that does behaviors are NOT chauvanistic in nature? I highly doubt it. I would argue that only calling those actions chauvanist was very mild.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Too many words, sound and fury, amounting to nothing. It would be better if there was anything substantial outside long-winged half-a-screen-size personal attacks and a weird Uyghur genocide denial in contributions. Unfortunately, this will end in a total ignore or in a meta lock too. -Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I never brought up a mention of the Uyghurs here, the first mention of it was brought in the local ruwiki discussion page my people digging up dirt on me in search of materials to conduct personal attacks on instead of addressing the issue at hand. Also, what the HECK do you think I can be blocked on meta for? I get that all of you at Russian Wikipedia are really mad to be subject to a discussion on meta and want to make this all about me instead of the problem and how it relates to ruwiki, but creating a request for comment on a legitimate issue IS NOT ACCEPTABLE GROUNDS FOR A BAN. Also, "nothing substantial"? Honey, did you read the top of the page listing examples showing a possibly coordinated attempt at mass purging of Crimean Tatar content on Russian Wikipedia that goes against the official everything-is-just-fine narrative?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
      • P.S. If all of you at Russian Wikipedia did or tried to do to Uyghur articles what you have been doing to Crimean Tatars (mass nominating well-sourced articles about Uyghur intellectual for deletion, nominating their ethnic group article for deletion and claiming existance of it is a "fringe theory", claiming that an aknowledged government program like "pair up and become family" was a hoax invented by Uyghurs to make China look bad, made an article titled "Uyghur collaboration with the USSR during the Sino-Soviet split", and/or "accidentally" labeled a non-Uyghur separatist leader as a Uyghur) - I would TOTALLY file a request for comment about such activities suggesting topic bans for the users in question!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
        Теперь пошли угрозы. Опомнитесь, пожалуйста! La loi et la justice (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
        • None of those statements are threat at all! I do not understand how you could possibly construe them as threats! Stop gaslighting.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • UPD: Участница заблокирована бессрочно в рувики. -- La loi et la justice (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    • And as I have pointed out, the fact that ruwiki chose to punish me for describing some of the appalling behaviors listed here as chauvanist and "threatened" the ruwiki with action in meta just goes to show that 1. Ruwiki is not capable of handling this issue internally. 2. Ruwiki censors dissenting voices as punishment for bringing up issues to meta. 3. Such block is not legitimate and shows the power-tripping nature of Russian wikipedia leadership and ergo should be revoked (even if people at ruwiki who see no issue with censorship and support this form of retribution don't want an unblock). 4. The fact that people saw blocking me to support their case of making this entirely a personal attack devoted to scrutinizing me instead of trying to engage in discussion on the issue itself with me and acknowledge the existance of the problem certainly doesn't make ruwiki look good.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
      Всё еще продолжаете трибунить? Вы были заблокированы в рувики вовсе не в цензурных целях (либо докажите обратное), а за неэтичное поведение и оскорбительные комменитарии. Может вы не заметили, но это разные вещи. La loi et la justice (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
      • You may think starting this RfC is "unethical behavior", but it is NOT grounds for a ban. And as I have stated MANY, MANY, MANY times...CALLING THE TATAROPHOBIC COMMENTARY THAT INFESTS RUWIKI CHAUVANIST IS NOT GROUNDS FOR A BAN EITHER. Do I need to quote the requests from ruwiki editors in discussions blatantly demanding censorship? From Orientalist "Наложить на участницу бессрочный топик-бан на крымско-татарскую тематику, в том числе их обсуждение где либо.". On the same page, from Summer: "Что-то мне представляется, что из таких борцов «за свободу слова» почти каждый рано или поздно оказывается в очень неприятном для них положении" --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
        Основанием было совсем не открытие этого запроса, отнюдь нет. А вот ваши резкие комменитарии на форуме — да. La loi et la justice (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
        • Yeah, right./s That's exactly why I said the block request complained that I was "threatening" Russian Wikipedia (their way of saying I was "attacking" russian wikipedia by starting the RfC). --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Nicoljaus's commentEdit

  • Comment I haven't studied the issue in depth, but I've seen problematic behavior: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The newly added text was very close to the wording "in the course of their national catastrophe this enemy nation received just retribution" in wikivoice.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Dear @Nicoljaus:, the fragment was revised by somebody else and patrolled by Orientalist himself. It shows that the Orientalist has at least recognized this flaw. Please study the problem more carefully befire starting to indict anyone.95.55.8.16 09:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
      @Oritanlist, обратите внимание на комментарий анонимного коллеги. La loi et la justice (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Правки бессрочников будут отменяться независимо от того, насколько они полезны. В этом суть блокировки. Ориенталист (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Gaming the system (not my words) - [12]--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
        • Возможно это не соответствовало духу правил, но по букве ничего нарушено не было. Когда данная информация была удалена другим опытным участником, я её не возвращал. Ориенталист (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
          • That's the problem: "Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus. Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
            • I would argue that the behavior of the ruwiki participants brought here (such as their absurd deletion nominations that had 0 legitimate chance of success but only served to force prolonged discussions and hound the article creators) is highly disruptive to the spirit of wikipedia and certainly a form of gaming the system since it heavily deters the creation of new articles among users affects. If not for them, I wouldn't have decided not to write any more articles on the topic (specifically articles about the Tat subethnos, the Gromyko commission, Ukaz 493, and the Tashkent Process) - such topics are obviously notable, but I didn't feel like participating in more dragged-out deletion discussions with people using absurd (and insulting!) arguments which would be inevitable if I or anyone else tried to make such articles that these people clearly want to discourage creation of. I am trying to help maintain a NPOV here, but obviously there are some parties heavily invested in POV-pushing in a degrading manner to the detriment of a small nation.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
            • Что то ещё? Или на основании этой ситуации годичной давности будем глобальный бан выписывать? Ориенталист (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)